Star Wars personnel weaponry: how powerful?

[takemeout_totheblack]

Just read DW's page on sidearms and other weaponry, and I would like to know what kind of power are we looking at? High kilowatt levels for pistols and smaller rifles and low Megawatt levels for larger rifles and anti-personnel / light anti-material weaponry? I can't seem to find any exact numbers anywhere, so some educated guesses based on observation would be more than acceptable.

Thoughts? Opinions?

[Srelex]

IIRC, blasters can be in the kilojoule/megajoule range, based on the explosions they made in the Mos Eisely hangar.

[Shroom Man 777]

Isn't this better for, you know, the actual-factual Star Wars forum?

[NecronLord]

Yes, moving.

[takemeout_totheblack]

Sorry about not posting this in Star Wars, I'm new.

[Vehrec]

It's important to remember that star wars ground combat weapons are on a totally different scale that the space weapons of the same setting. I think this is largely due to one critical element of ground combat that hasn't been eliminated or improved. The biological elements. People are still people in Star Wars. People are squishy and prone to shrapnel damage. Lots of droids are mostly constructed to near-human tolerances. What's that mean? It means that you don't need much more energy then the megajoule weapons, and a lot of the time those must be used as much for their ability to turn near misses into wounds. After all, considering the size of the galaxy, most people using blasters probably aren't using them in even a para-military role.

[takemeout_totheblack]

So, the unanimous verdict is high Kilojoules (800+kilojoules) or low single digit megajoules (<5 megajoules).
Yay or nay?

[Connor MacLeod]

Depends entirely on the blaster and the sort of kill mechanism it works on. Some blasters seem to do purely thermal damage primarily with little or no mechanical damage (cook the fuck out of whatever they are hitting - EG Greedo in ANH) and others seem to cause explosive damage (putting huge craters in the wall in ANH and TESB). Then there are "proximity" effects (near hits causing some sort of injury either presumably through blast or fragmentation effects - ANH and ROTJ), and cases where bolts hit and do no immediate or obvious damage but still knock down - which I suspect means blasters have a (potentially more lethal) version of a stun effect accompanying the normal effects (which makes sense, since we saw normal blaster fire do that ion cannon like effect on Luke's airspeeder in TESB.)

Generally mechanical damage mechanisms (explosive effects, bascially) are more efficient than simply melting/vaporizing something, and thus can cause more damage for less input of energy. Blasters could be convceivably low kilojoule but have highly explosive effects, or they could be low megajoule and mostly cook the enemy, or be somewhere in between, or some combination thereof. With different settings and possible modes (I'm not even including examples of blasters that have a needlebeam setting or a cutting/continous mode either, both of which have been mentioned and sometimes seen.)

[takemeout_totheblack]

More explosive effect on less conductive substances (ie ferroconcrete, durasteel, whatever Cloud City walls were made of) and a kind of 'internal flash fry' effect on squishy, water based critters a la Greedo. Making them an effective anti-personnel weapon and a competent anti-material weapon even when on a smaller scale.
Is that about right?

[JGregory32]

I don't think the scene in the Mos Eisley hanger can be quite accurate. There might have been a film of volatile material deposited there by repeated take offs, landings, and refueling.
The Material the hanger is made of is also suspicious. It looks like sandstone and the resistance of sandstone to thermal and impact shock is different than concrete. Does anybody have the numbers for sandstone? The scene makes it look like a large chunk of the sandstone breaks off and falls, possibly indicating a fault of some kind in the stone.
I'm not questioning anything other than the scene in the Mos Eisley hanger. Calcs based on other scenes I have no problem with.

[Srelex]

I don't think the scene in the Mos Eisley hanger can be quite accurate. There might have been a film of volatile material deposited there by repeated take offs, landings, and refueling.
The Material the hanger is made of is also suspicious. It looks like sandstone and the resistance of sandstone to thermal and impact shock is different than concrete. Does anybody have the numbers for sandstone? The scene makes it look like a large chunk of the sandstone breaks off and falls, possibly indicating a fault of some kind in the stone.
I'm not questioning anything other than the scene in the Mos Eisley hanger. Calcs based on other scenes I have no problem with.

A film of volatile material? Erm, have you any proof or reasoning behidn this?

[JGregory32]

No direct proof but I think I might have some reasoning. The hanger at Mos Eisley also contained equipment for refueling starships, it was frequently used by smuggling vessels and tramp traders that may not have had the most efficient engines so there is a possibility of unspent fuel exiting the engines.
Sandstone is a very porous stone so it would quickly absorb and hold any material that would be spilled on it so fuel spills or unspent fuel could be trapped by the stone.
We also see the Falcon rotate as it rises, any unspent fuel or exhaust from the main engines would coat the walls of the hanger.
This of course is all conjecture, if somebody can present an good reason why this would not happen I'm more than happy to withdraw my objections.

[Connor MacLeod]

More explosive effect on less conductive substances (ie ferroconcrete, durasteel, whatever Cloud City walls were made of) and a kind of 'internal flash fry' effect on squishy, water based critters a la Greedo. Making them an effective anti-personnel weapon and a competent anti-material weapon even when on a smaller scale.
Is that about right?

Or its just different modes (sort of like having AP, HE, and incendiary rounds for a rifle. Or maybe a grenade launcher that has HEAT, HE, incendiary and thermobaric and frag rounds would be more accurate.) Think of it in terms of tradeoffs. A blaster could put out more energy for damage purposes, but it drains the powerpack and may strain the gun so limits how fast it can be delievered (ie for a given power level you can deliver a given amount of energy at a given rate. Increase the energy and the rate goes down, and vice versa.) Going for more explosive effect may necessitate reducing energy output for the same reasons above - it saves you ammo and is more efficient, but it may not be effective against all targets.

It can also encompass different power settings too, so its not just "target nature" or "mode" neccesarily either. It may even vary according to the kinds of blasters (they come in more than just one variety.)

[blacksun2175]

I don't think the scene in the Mos Eisley hanger can be quite accurate. There might have been a film of volatile material deposited there by repeated take offs, landings, and refueling.
The Material the hanger is made of is also suspicious. It looks like sandstone and the resistance of sandstone to thermal and impact shock is different than concrete. Does anybody have the numbers for sandstone? The scene makes it look like a large chunk of the sandstone breaks off and falls, possibly indicating a fault of some kind in the stone.
I'm not questioning anything other than the scene in the Mos Eisley hanger. Calcs based on other scenes I have no problem with.

I just figured it was a incredibly old and brittle material. I mean the blasters cause sort of mini explosions when they hit through out the movies so I figure it is safe to assume the result would be more violent if they hit a weak material.

[Simon_Jester]

Depends entirely on the blaster and the sort of kill mechanism it works on. Some blasters seem to do purely thermal damage primarily with little or no mechanical damage (cook the fuck out of whatever they are hitting - EG Greedo in ANH) and others seem to cause explosive damage (putting huge craters in the wall in ANH and TESB). Then there are "proximity" effects (near hits causing some sort of injury either presumably through blast or fragmentation effects - ANH and ROTJ), and cases where bolts hit and do no immediate or obvious damage but still knock down - which I suspect means blasters have a (potentially more lethal) version of a stun effect accompanying the normal effects (which makes sense, since we saw normal blaster fire do that ion cannon like effect on Luke's airspeeder in TESB.)

Though a major weapon hit could probably cause that without any need for an EMP* effect like we see from ion cannon fire. The snowspeeder has enough power that damage to the electrical system could easily set off plenty of arcing and sparking.

*Movie-EMP, if not real life EMP, anyway...

[BLACKSUN2000]

The scene in question.

Sandstone is a very porous stone so it would quickly absorb and hold any material that would be spilled on it so fuel spills or unspent fuel could be trapped by the stone.

All the explosion seem to be coming from several inches within the walls themselves.

Like if an explosive charge had been placed prior to the shots.

Sandstone is a very porous stone so it would quickly absorb and hold any material that would be spilled on it so fuel spills or unspent fuel could be trapped by the stone.

I thought that SW vessels didn't use combustible fuels, Several sources say they use heavy metals for their "fusion" generators.

[Connor MacLeod]

Though a major weapon hit could probably cause that without any need for an EMP* effect like we see from ion cannon fire. The snowspeeder has enough power that damage to the electrical system could easily set off plenty of arcing and sparking.

*Movie-EMP, if not real life EMP, anyway...

It could, though most sources have already indicated blasters can cause an ionization like effect anyhow, so the fact still stands. To which we can also add that a sufficiently powerful "stun" effect can also be lethal.

[JGregory32]

Thanks Blacksun that helps out a lot. If you look at the walls in the background you'll notice large sections of discoloration. There's a very large one just above the hanger entrance. Those look like some kind of residue to me.

[Mr Bean]

Jgregory32 I know it's a pet theory, and I know how people love their pet theories but you have to first demonstrate why their would be fuel residue in the entrance and not you know... near reloading equipment. Much like how you don't expect to see oil stains six feet above the wall in a garage waiting room you have to explain away how exactly the stains would have gotten there. After you explain that away as an in-universe thing instead of a real life "that's where they hid the explosive squibs" you then have to explain what kind of a fuel (Give you a hint... it's not gasoline) they use that leaves an explosives residue. By all indications the "fuel" they use is a mix of the low tech (IE hydrogen for fusion engines) to more exotic fuels (Certain gas giant harvested gases).

[JointStrikeFighter]

Thats not sandstone anyway.

[BLACKSUN2000]

From wookiepedia:

Permacrete, also known as duracrete, was a very strong and heat resistant material. It was used mostly in the construction of landing pads and pits for spaceports.

Correct, The landing pad was made of duracrete not sandstone. Even if it were soaked with fuel I doubt it would explode like that.

In order for it to explode like that there would have to be pockets filled with explosives.

[Connor MacLeod]

No direct proof but I think I might have some reasoning. The hanger at Mos Eisley also contained equipment for refueling starships, it was frequently used by smuggling vessels and tramp traders that may not have had the most efficient engines so there is a possibility of unspent fuel exiting the engines.
Sandstone is a very porous stone so it would quickly absorb and hold any material that would be spilled on it so fuel spills or unspent fuel could be trapped by the stone.
We also see the Falcon rotate as it rises, any unspent fuel or exhaust from the main engines would coat the walls of the hanger.
This of course is all conjecture, if somebody can present an good reason why this would not happen I'm more than happy to withdraw my objections.

Fuel doesn't normally detonate like a high explosive unless you do things to it? If what you claimed were true we'd also be seeing craters (or at least significant blackened marks) on the surface. It also would be a terrifly inefficient way to blast things, so there rpboably would be alot more residiual effects.

There's also the fact that you're assuming all fuels are neccesarily reactive to light/heat/radiaton/whatever. Which may or may not neccesarily be the case (what if its antimatter fuel, for example?)

I'm also sure as a rule ion engines don't normally eject "fuel", they eject propellant. There's a difference between what you put into the reactors and what you put into the engines.

[JGregory32]

Okay, I withdraw my objections.

[Boeing 757]

Thanks Blacksun that helps out a lot. If you look at the walls in the background you'll notice large sections of discoloration. There's a very large one just above the hanger entrance. Those look like some kind of residue to me.

I doubt it was fuel or any thing else volatile. Probably moss, and that alone.

Mos Eisly is a spaceport above all else, so safety will not be an issue to be taken for granted, even on a backwater like Tatooine. Allowing biohazardous material to lay around where it can prove to be fatal to not only residents and the environment, but also lead to a fire/explosion hazard, is the last thing that any one would want. More than likely safety precautions are set in place to deal effectively and immediately with whatever byproducts that SW ships might leave behind.

Moreover, SW ships carry radioactive waste products on board, and hell even gasoline leakage can potentially devastate an environment if enough were to escape, so the necessity to prevent any spillage of material in the first place ought to be top priority for SW engineers. And certainly, that's what's observed in the films: none of the technicians worry about volatile fuels leaking, even from junk buckets like the MF and podracers, so with that in mind I would deem the possibility of fuel accumulating on the walls to be rather slim.

[BLACKSUN2000]

Those stains could be all sorts of different things.

Starships that make pan-galactic journeys would have to refuel it's water supply, dump the contents its sceptic tank(sp?), refill it's hydraulic fluids,lubricants and blaster gas. The list could go on and on.